[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)

Under the, by now, agreed proposal for D to be educated at home, an organisation called Skybound Therapies were to provide certain support services including support worker assistance to enable D to access the community as part of his education. On 29 April 2022, Skybound’s Ms Dennison sent an email to Dr Gillard, the local authority’s educational psychologist, which included the following words:

“…I haven’t seen [the school risk assessment] but I would imagine that if there are 3 adults attending a community event, then if [D] attempted to run away more than 1 person would help and support. All physical intervention training that I am aware of would require 2 people to support someone who is eloping in the event that this occurs…

The data collected during a baseline observation of the community with a family member indicated that he pulled away (and harness was used to restrain) 62 times during a 70 minute observation (see the October 21 skybound tribunal report for details). The risk assessment is based upon the reports that [D] has eloped from school, has eloped from home and has required restraint in the community (in the form of a harness and being physically supported away from roads etc) in order to keep him safe and walking with a caregiver. Additionally he has attempted to board buses and take items from shops and may cause damage to others and property in the community and there have been reports that he has run out in front of cars. This information regarding his behaviours has informed our decision that he would need 2:1 in the community to ensure his safety.

Given that this is the information we have regarding his behaviour in the community and given that these [sic] behaviour could result in death, serious life changing injuries to himself or others or that a vulnerable person could become lost or unattended among community members etc, we must based [sic] our risk assessment on this and therefore before our team would be permitted to enter the community with him they would need at least 2 staff present in order to support if needed to ensure safety. At present the staff member who delivers his 1:1 ABA sessions in the home is not permitted to take him into the community alone and as such sessions have not occurred in the community.

We are hoping that once we are able to enter the community and practice the safety skills he has learned at home then this ratio could be faded over time, however we wouldn’t be able to begin practising these skills in the community without ensuring he is safe to practice and 2:1 would be essential to ensure he is safe to practice these skills in the community without ensuring he is safe to practice and 2:1 would be essential to ensure he is safe to practice these skills in the community. This ratio would be reviewed on a regular basis by reviewing the incident forms of how often 2 people were needed to support in each community location.

…a harness is used by the family as the safety measure, the Skybound team would not be able to use a harness as we are not trained in harness use and due to his age and size we would not be able to support our team in using a harness as this is likely to cause injury to staff members and himself.”

The First-tier Tribunal admitted Skybound’s email of 29 April 2022 without objection from the local authority.

The Appellant’s ‘written closing submissions’, dated 6 May 2022, stated that they were “drafted with reference to Working Document version 15” although they included submissions in support of parental amendments made in Working Document (WD) 16, which was the final WD.

The Appellant’s closing written submissions, drafted by counsel:

submitted that “the [29 April 2022 email] clarifies further the rationale for Skybound Therapies stating that [D] requires 2:1 support for 15 hours per week, in response to questions from Dr Gillard”;

relied on evidence, including Ms Dennison’s email of 29 April 2022, to argue that “the rationale for 2:1 support while [D] is accessing the community is to ensure that if [D] does run away, two people are available to use fluid restraint and/or two-person escort techniques to keep him safe” and “he cannot be restrained or escorted safely by one person. Indeed, when his mother walks with [D] in the community, she is forced to use a Houdini harness. The use of ongoing physical restraint of this sort is undignified and unsafe…It is important that, moving forwards, [D] is able to access the community without physical restraints being used”.